Coming out of ORD last week, the CO/NW "elite" line into security was just as long, if not longer, than the regular line. It was open for "elites" of all airlines and the gate staff were pushing all sorts of people in (late for flights, etc.). Until the regular flying public gets back into the air (hopefully May or June) it's not going to make a real difference in which line you are.

Uh, because if the airlines don't fill up their seats with a profitable mix of both business and leisure travellers, they'll fail?

Uh, maybe because Mineta said that everyone should be able to get through security in no more than 20 minutes?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that not every city is served by each airline. Sooner or later, if you travel for business, you will have to go to a city where you cannot take your preferred airline for whatever reason. Hell, if you travel for leisure, sooner or later you will have to fly on an airline that you don't have status on because of fare differences. And then you will be one of the masses that has to wait two hours to get through the line.

So, can we stop obsessing about what perks elite flyers get and start focusing on the real problem?

Re check-in lines and pre-boarding perks for FF:

I don't have to wait in line at the ticket counter, as long as I don't check luggage (which I normally don't). Normally I use a kiosk or check-in at the gate.

I don't have to pre-board. My carry-on can fit under the seat in front of me.

I don't have to have a First Class meal and free drinks. I can eat before and after the flight, and I can drink some other time.

But, I absolutely MUST go through security.

MDTONY: I disagree. I fly mostly on AA and its OW partners. It is not too hard to route yourself through their network. There are very few places on this planet that I need to go that I can't go on a OW airline. I always have the choice of flying a more direct route but choose not to for obvious reasons. American treats me better with status than the other airlines do without status--even on a full fare ticket.

Last January I waited over three hours in Line at LAX waiting for my CX departure to Hong Kong. Did I like it? Heck no. Did I put up with it? You bet. Would I trade a shorter line in LAX for a longer line at SEA?---NO WAY.

SEA is my home airport and they do have an elite line for American. Every single time I start a trip, I save anywhere from 5 minutes to 2 hours waiting in line. I can put up with a long wait elesewhere from time to time. I would rethink my flying schedule if I had to wait in line every single time I left SEA and I fly over 180k base miles a year.

If they can keep the lines down to 10 (even 20) minutes maximum at all times then they can do away with the elite security lines and everyone will be happy--until then, the elite lines are one of the few things that keep the frequent flyers flying.

I believe that Joe Leisure will still fill seats even if they have to wait in line 2 hours. But, Joe Business will not purchase high revenue seats (the type that airlines really need right now) for a quick (day trip etc.) trip if they have to spend more time waiting in lines than conducting business. Think about it. Two hours waiting in a line before embarking for a week vacation means much less to Joe Leisure than waiting two hours in line before a two hour meeting for Joe Business.

Separate lines while waiting to visit with the Security Morons still means that all passengers need to get through security. All passengers do not need to get through at the same speed.

Good thing that the esteemed Mr. Mineta said that everyone should get through security in no more than 20 minutes. He didn't say that everyone will.

Absolutely correct. The day that I travel to a non-AA served city will be the day that I will wait in line with Joe Leisure. But the reality is, with all the global alliances, there are very few cities on this planet where I will have to wait in a longer check-in line than Joe Leisure.

Couldn't agree with you more. Joe Leisure should stop obsessing about the perks that elite glyers get and start focusing on the real problem. But, if we (Joe Leisure and Joe Business) wait for the esteemed Mr. Mineta and the Gov'ment to fix the "real problem," then IMHO we will be waiting a long, long, long time (maybe even longer than the lines everyone is "obsessing" about http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif). By coming up with simple solutions to issues they can control, the airlines are trying to do all they can to keep the public (and especially us high-revenue Joe Business types that they love to rip off) flying.



[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-13-2002).]

This almost makes my point that the current system gives large airlines and their partners an almost monopolistic advantage over smaller carriers that have been (so far) shut out of an alliance (for example: USAirways). By giving an artifical (non-market driven) advantage to the larger carriers in the current environment it has the effect of driving the elites of smaller carriers away from those carriers and into the arms of a larger carrier with global alliances. The end result will probably the and oligopoly of large airline alliances on which business travelers with status will fly and endure higher fares and a few discount carriers that don't depend on the high-fare business traveler (e.g. Southwest and JetBlue). That day may have been coming anyway, but this will certainly accelerate it.

I agree with you that alliances are not the best thing for consumers but lets not confuse the difference between alliances and anti-trust immunity. Northwest/KLM, UA/LH and DL/AF have immunity and can set prices together. AA and BA can't.

Even if US Airways does not join an alliance, there is no reason why they can't offer the same perks to their elites in their hub markets as the other airlines do.

I agree that US Airways could give there elites the same perks in THEIR hubs that OneWorld or Star carriers give their elites in their hubs - In fact the do in PHL. But they are newly disadvantaged by not being in an "alliance" because some other carrier has a "monopoly" on the lines in most of the other airports in the world. With the slowdown in security after 9/11, this monopoly has suddenly become a valuable commodity. Due to the "market dominance" other carriers have in this scarce resource, they can exercise there "monopoly power" to steal elites from other airlines that do not possess sufficient access to this commodity (i.e. few hubs and no alliance membership).


[This message has been edited by rtpflyer (edited 03-13-2002).]

I would disagree with you. I don't think the aliances are an "artificial non-market driven" advantage (IMHO, and I am not an economist, an example of non-market driven is a government awarded monopoly or some other artificial obstruction where potential competitors who are willing to compete are precluded from competing), but in fact the alliances are market driven. No one forced any of the airlines to join an alliance, they joined on thier own. As a further example of the alliances being market driven, just look at all the rumor of members threatening to leave one alliance and join the other, of airlines finally joining an alliance (The reconstituted SwissAir joining OW comes to mind) etc. The airlines are in an alliance as long as it benefits them, and not a second longer.

Are we sure that the reason USAirways isn't currently in an alliance is because perhaps they previously choose not to join an alliance on the misguided belief that they didn't need to? And of course now that they are in such distress and don't really have anything to offer potential alliance partners, they don't have the opportunity?

Basically USAirways is one of the few airlines without an alliance dance partner, not because the Gov'ment won't let them come to the dance, but because none of the other airlines wants to dance with them. USAirways is not exactly the beauty of the ball.



[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-13-2002).]

I didn't mean to indicate that I thought alliances themselves were not market-driven, but rather "ownership" of the security lines which seems to have arbitrarilly devolved to whoever was responsible for security in the past (and now no longer is). It's not like any airline explicitly "bought" the right to control the lines at an airport.


[This message has been edited by rtpflyer (edited 03-13-2002).]

I disagree. Time is money. Since business travelers are willing to spend much more money on an airline ticket than a leisure traveler, business travelers are more likely to be willing to wait in a long line than are leisure travelers. Business travelers are willing to spend more money than leisure travelers because their need to travel is greater.

If Joe Business needs to go on an important business trip, he will have to spend mucho bucks and he will have to wait in line if there is no elite line, or if he isn't elite. Important point here: not all business travelers hold elite status. *Frequent* business travelers typically hold elite status.

But, if Joe Leisure is considering a vacation, he may decide not to go, or to drive, if he knows he will have to wait in line two hours going out and coming back. The same would be true if leisure fares doubled -- he might not go at all, or he might drive to his destination.

[This message has been edited by JS (edited 03-13-2002).]

Joe Leisure does not decide to fly based upon elite level or frequent flyer miles or time it takes to stand in line. The only factor that goes into what airline he/she fly's is the price of the ticket. If the ticket is the same price, then other facotrs come into play such as schedules and stop-overs.

If Joe Leisure could save $20.00 by being seated in the cargo hold most would do it.

JS, I think we agree on the same principle, but are disagreeing on how we are saying it.

Yes, Joe Business will generally pay the higher prices and invest the time needed to get to an important business meeting. That is the nature of business. The key word here is important. What is now happening is that Joe Business is giving second thoughts as to what is an "important" business meeting. For some trips, Joe Business is debating wether or not he/she really needs/wants to spend all that extra time at the airport. There are diminishing returns for all the time invested in getting through the airports. At some point, the return is less than the time/hassel investment and Joe Leisure will stay home. Options such as conference call, video conferencing etc. are now seeing increased business due to the extra time needed to traverse the airport system. Personally, I now question whether I really need to be there for what could possibly turn out to be just another staff meeting because I don't want to spend more time traveling than I would spend in the meeting. This is full fare money that the airlines are not getting because it just isn't worth it for me anymore to make the trip. Yes, I agree with you that Joe Business will spend the time and money to attend an important business meeting. But, Joe Business will not spend the time attend not so important business meetings that he probably would have attended pre 9/11.

Yes, Joe Leisure has other options such as driving, taking the train, or just not going on vacation. But the distinction I was trying to make earlier was that if Joe Leisure's alternatives aren't really realistic (hard to drive to Europe from Kansas, can't stay home because the spouse and kids really want to go), he/she will just put up with the wait in line and go on their happy vacation. Again using myself as an example, I know that for my family vacation later this year, getting through the airport is going to be a major hassel (even with the perks I get as a Frequent Flyer). But, I am still going to go visit with the Security Morons, I am going to enjoy my vacation, and I'm not going to let those terrorists get me down.

[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 03-13-2002).]

Secretary Mineta needs to come to Las Vegas and see the lines to the D Gates on Sunday mornings then.

-nate

I disagree with JS.

Business travelers don't HAVE to fly, as the airlines have found out to their regret. If the inconvenience (or discomfort/fear) is too high, they will cancel, do a conference call or try out more exotic solutions like video conferencing or private charters.

The leisure flyers will fly in spite of long waits.

The business flyers won't.